South Park creators warned over Muhammad depiction‏

They must show it, no censor, no ban. Free speech is at stake, and I don't think anyone has summed up the arguments about it as well as Stone and Parker

A liberal (Socialist) take on free speech and the BNP

Not my words, but my sentiment:
"The fact that other parties are trying to silence a minority voice makes them no better than the BNP.

Rational people are unlikely to vote for them so why is there such a furore?

Censorship and biggotry go hand in hand, it breeds discontent and hatred.

There will be a backlash if they try to prevent this, it is irrelevant that the government and other parties disagree with alternative viewpoints, the simplest fact that the governemnt are legislating against free speech and opinion is an attack on all our freedoms.

Let them have their say, let us make up our own minds. The only way BNP will benefit from this is if their argument is more convincing than others and if that is the case than maybe the other parties don't have the right people or ideas.

BTW I totally disagree with the BNP policies."

Parliamentary goings on

"An interesting exchange in the Commons this afternoon following the Guardian story:

Paul Farrelly told the House of Commons that he had sought to raise a question about Trafigura, which was an international oil trader “at the centre of a controversy concerning toxic waste dumping in the Ivory Coast.”

“The question also relates to the role of the solicitors Carter Ruck. Yesterday, Mr Speaker, I understand that Carter Ruck quite astonishingly warned the newspaper of legal action if the Guardian reported my question. Mr Speaker, will you accept representations from me in this matter to consider whether Carter Ruck’s behaviour constitutes potential contempt of court?”

The Speaker replied that the matter was not sub judice. He said that the written question had already been tabled, was on the order paper and on the Parliament website. “There is no question of our own proceedings being in any way inhibited,” he said.

David Heath, a Liberal Democrat MP, said Parliamentary privilege was a long-established principle and there should be further debate in the Commons about the issue.

David Davis, former shadow home secretary, said the phenomenon of “super-injunctions” - where the media could not even report the existence of an injunction - was relatively new. He asked whether the Speaker could seek legal advice to prevent the “closing down” of reporting of Parliament, or seek a meeting with the Justice secretary to see if the government could intervene.

The Speaker dismissed Mr Davis’s first suggestion, saying it could be seen as interference in the legal process. However, he would consider the merits of the second suggestion"

Iain Dale on hosing protestors and having a sense of humour

Iain Dale said:
" Legitimate protest is one thing. Invading the parliamentary estate like this is quite another. Just leaving them up there on the roof with no intervention by the Police sends a simple message to others who might have the same idea: come on in, we’re too worried about negative press reaction to do anything.


KEY:

I wish I had suggested to Bob Ainsworth that he send the army in with a water cannon. It’s the only language they understand."

add to that:
"For the humourless left, perhaps I should have added a smiley after that sentence. They really don’t do tongue in cheek humour do they? Po faced idiots."



What’s priceless about this, was that when Dale was attacked by the Daily Mail for being gay, they defended themselves with the ‘get a sense of homour’ line and Dale was saying how unpleasant it was. He said he felt the pain of those who had that attacked used against them.
How quickly things change

BNP on the BBC

This again. There's a lot of it about.

i’m not happy about the lack of consideration for free speech on Liberal Conspiracy.I thought it was supposed to be a LIBERAL forum. Being a liberal means tolerating those you don’t agree with, even when they are nasty racist nutters. the point is that everyone seems to be calculating what to do on the basis of what will do most damage to the BNP, rather than considering what is best for democracy. I know the BNP in power is bad for democracy as we all know what they’d do, but i’m getting pretty sick of so called ‘liberals’ trying to deny basic liberal rights to people they disagree (very strongly) with.




"This article does rather seem to imply that the British public are inbred morons, ready to march straight to the ballot box and vote for whichever candidate has the nicest sounding name. I have a bit more faith in them than that (most of them, anyway).”

I don’t. (prove me wrong, britain, prove me wrong)

Benevelont dictatorship is the way forward I say. I only post here because nobody has created ‘authoritarian conspiracy’ yet.

More seriously, the problem isn’t so much the BNP’s appearence, but the fact nobody else in the mainstream parties is going to be capable of making pro-immigration arguments. We’ve had over a decade of hysteria about immigration that leads to moronic comments about britain having an open door policy (it doesn’t – anyone who thinks this is asked to explain why it would be necessary to have a campaign to allow Iraqi interpreters into the UK if we actually did have an open doors policy) and frequent inaccurate assertions about the benefits immigrants are entitled to. So much so that I doubt even the more literate and nuanced members of the anti-immigration brigade would be capable of writing a few paragraphs that put the pro-immigration case if a gun was stuck to their head – which isn’t the case with other political issues where most people at least know some of the arguments against their own position. I’d rather see Griffin face a couple of academics from Compas or the centre for migration policy research than a couple of loyal party hacks reciting the party line.

For that matter I’d rather see an entire panel of experienced academics discuss the issues of the day than a bunch of party loyalists more interested in making soundbites. Imagine a panel comprising proffessors of economics, criminolgy, international relations, history, social policy and physics. Now that would be worth watching."

Bearded Socialist:
"I'm certainly with you on the panel of specialists rather than party hacks, sounds amazing. But there would only be you and me watching it because it's 'boring'. Even if we got thousands to sign up to support it, it wouldn't never get off the ground because it's not 'young' or 'sexy' enough.

On addressing the issues, you're quite right.
The media are full of stories every day about migrants coming over here, stealing our jobs, lazing around on benefits, committing crimes, overtaking our culture, putting down the ingenous people.
I don't think it's true, but the fact that it's there all day every day makes it become near enough true.
That, to me, is a big part of the problem. I wonder how much of the BNP's support comes from personal experience, how much from the media"

free-thinking politicans

Very interesting piece including some excellent quotes such as

"the leaden repetition of the official line is perhaps even more important than the expenses scandal in explaining the low standing of MPs"

"What Westminster calls a gaffe, most voters call frankness. When a free spirit asks what the consensus deems wild questions, millions of people may listen and test their thinking. Parliament needs its republicans, its hardcore anti-EU campaigners, its squeeze-the-rich enthusiasts. If everyone is a member of the soggy centrist consensus, serious thinking becomes flabby and the point of parliamentary politics declines."

"Once, Labour seemed in danger of falling apart. Then it learned discipline. But it learned silence and discretion too. Just now, it sounds like the silence of the graveyard"



too right. There is a very delicate balance to be struck between discipline and blandness. Too often parties' centres are obsessed with discipline, but the lack of real debate goes deeper than that, with a lot of people in the party thinking that Labour is now too much run from the top of the centre. This may be partly the result of our two last leaders, but i think it's deeper. Perhaps it's the result of desperation and panic, i haven't been in the party long enough to know. I believe Labour now is the good old Labour party that everyone has known and (in my case now) love(d).

will we see things like blogging open up the political debate so that random politicians/MPs can speak freely? I hope so.
Does this mean they'll have anything to say? I hope that greater freedom allows more to find their voices. Julian Ware-Lane is a top example. I hope he get's elected and keeps his blog going.
I declare an interest here because he's been very kind about my blog.
I don't follow Tom Watson enough to speak on his, but i do think he's a top bloke (not only coz he bought me beer)

Ban the bastards

From Pickled Politics
"From Hope Not Hate:

The Home Secretary has just announced that the anti-Islam march in Luton will not be taking place. In fact, as a precautionary measure, all marches have been banned in the town for the next three months.

This is a massive victory for everyone who joined our protest yesterday. Over 14,000 letters were sent urging a ban and our voices have been heard. Thanks to everyone who sent off a letter. We have won and Luton is a safer place because of it. This is just further proof of what we can achieve when we get organised."

I'm not in favour of banning things. I mean, the left would be up in arms if an anti-war march or anti-racism march had been banned, or if all marches had been banned for three months. It's very difficult, because i'm a liberal sort and anyone going against that naturally rubs me the wrong way. But where to draw the line? The whole idea of being a liberal is tolerating those who disagree, but if they really are racist or anti-Islamic they may deserve to be banned. It's a bit of a liberal paradox.

I don't like the glee that lefties of this sort take in banning people who disagree with them.

If they are an illegal group then fair enough i suppose as they have fallen foul of the law

Quentin Letts

Now, I can't stand Letts. But, as a liberal, i support his freedom to say what he likes. This piece is top.